Ted Thompson: Draft Lessons Learned?

As the sun sets on the first day of Ted Thompson's first day of the 2007 draft, one can guess that he’s possibly grinding his teeth a little bit as he prepared to catch some shut-eye.

Criticism wasn’t in short supply for Thompson’s first-day picks, and for the first time, Ted even lashed out a bit at the media for questioning those picks, at one point asking them if they’d rather he send down a scout to talk to them, as he wasn’t going to shoot holes in the kids he had selected.

The young players not only are relatively well-regarded, but they addressed some moderate needs the team was facing: a big defensive tackle to anchor the line next to Ryan Pickett; a smallish running back already used to zone blocking and the WCO; an athletic (albeit slow) young wide receiver that can return kicks; and a hard-hitting safety to challenge Marquand Manuel in the backfield.

No one can argue these players are all solid picks. The question comes in whether or not they would have been available ten picks later.

Ted Thompson built a two-year reputation on “backwards-thinking”, of looking at his targeted players and trading back to get them, and more picks to boot! Thompson amassed an amazing 23 draft picks his first two seasons, with many of them taking on starting roles.

But one situation last season may have affected Thompson’s sudden reverse: why not use the trade-down to get the same player plus more talent this year, too?

Last season, Green Bay held the 36th pick in the draft and seemed poised to take Chad Jackson, one of the heralded wide receivers available last year. However, the New England Patriots wanted Jackson and offered the Packers picks #52 and #75. Thompson has been rumored to have had Greg Jennings high on his draft board, but knew he’d be able to pick him up well after pick #36.

Following the trade, he indeed selected Jennings at #52. Another player that insiders have said Thompson had high on his board was Wisconsin running back Brian Calhoun, and nearly every mock draft had him going in the 70’s. It was a calculated risk to get the player he wanted, a player that would have been a great insurance policy for an injured Ahman Green, and a good fit for the new blocking scheme.

However, the Detroit Lions snuck in and grabbed Calhoun with pick #74, likely a disappointment for Thompson, who didn’t select a single running back the rest of that draft. Amusingly enough, out of 23 draft picks in his first two seasons, not one of them was a running back.

Missing out on Calhoun may have stung Thompson more than we thought, because in this year’s draft, we’re seeing a rather radical departure from what has been Thompson’s usual method: if the guy you are targeting is there, and will likely be there later, trade down.

When I heard Justin Harrell’s name, I didn’t blink an eye or scream in pain. His name had been coming up more and more over the past week or so as a distinct possibility, though more often with a trade-down into the 20’s. Most mock drafts had him going around #32 to the Colts.

But it struck me odd that Thompson elected to take the guy right then and there at #16. Almost immediately, he was open to as much criticism as Miami had taken for selecting Ted Ginn, Jr. in the top ten. Was he afraid he might end up missing Harrell if he went down to 30? Or even 25? Or even 20?

Thompson’s resolve was tested again when he traded down with the Jets in the second round. It’s quite possible that he was hoping to get one of the big fullbacks or halfbacks while moving down from #47 to #63. As it turned out, a run on running backs happened almost right after that trade, with Kenny Irons, Chris Henry, and Brian Leonard all disappearing by pick #52.

Could Thompson have traded down from #63 and still managed to get running back Brandon Jackson? Quite possible, but despite seeing Jackson projected as a third or fourth round selection, Thompson made the pick right there in the second.

Similar stories might be told for third-round picks WR James Jones and S Aaron Rouse, both of whom were pegged to go a bit later than where they did.

This is not to say that the players selected were unworthy, or will not become successful players. In each case, the players seem to have talents and skills that not only address needs on the team, but are all stand-up players of good character. Chances are these guys are “Packer People”.

The question is, though, if they could have been acquired later on, why didn’t we maximize the draft as we have in years’ past with Thompson’s patented trade-down? Were there any phone calls or offers on the table, or was Ted focused on not letting his targets get by?

All four of these guys, like all first-day picks, are expected to take on starting roles (Harrell) or strong contributing roles this season. All may do very well, and Thompson would be given strong credit for a strong draft.

But, whether this draft is strong or weak, whether you think it was genius or idiotic, one thing seems to be true: this wasn’t the same Ted Thompson, expertly finagling picks and still getting the guys on his board, bringing in large crops of talent from the draft.

No, this Thompson was true to his board, and when the pick came up, he took the guy who was highest-ranked on his board, and spent less time looking at how the rest of the league might value those guys. As a result, we may end up with much fewer picks this draft, and not necessarily an improvement in the talent level we’d have had we traded down.

Nick Barnett: Three Key Answers

A while back, I authored an article called "Three Key Questions" about Nick Barnett, and questioned whether or not Ted Thompson OR Barnett would be able to come to a deal this off-season. Well, now that the deal has been signed, let's review those questions and provide some conjecture on how they were answered.

Question Number One: How much value do the Green Bay Packers place on Nick Barnett?

In my original article, I questioned whether or not Ted Thompson would see Nick Barnett as a part of this team for the foreseeable future, and if he'd be worth a Adalius Thomas-esque $12 million signing bonus.

Well, he got a $10 million signing bonus, quite a load for a middle linebacker that hasn't seen a Pro Bowl as yet. That isn't anything to say that Barnett isn't worth it, but it is clear in the eyes of Ted Thompson that he is.

More so, it is clear that in the eyes of Ted Thompson, Nick Barnett was worth passing up similar-sized contracts for many of this year's free agents to keep that cap space clear for Barnett. I've been scratching my head for weeks wondering how in the world the Packers were going to spend $22 million in salary cap space, and the only two things that I could conclude was the Packers were going to pay big bucks to Nick Barnett, or pay big bucks for Randy Moss.

Amusingly, as the rumors for Moss have gone from "imminent" to "still on the table" to "still a possibility" to "dead in the water", Barnett got wrapped up with the big deal he'd been wanting. Whether or not the two potential deals were related as an "or" situation, we may never know.

Incidentally, imagining that Barnett will count between $6-10 million against this year's cap, and the draft class will take up another $7 million, it doesn't leave much money left over to bring on a certain malcontent wide receiver, does it?

In one fell swoop, Thompson made one good signing, and one good non-signing with this deal.

It is also clear that Ted Thompson valued Nick Barnett more than the free agents on the market: he essentially gave an Adelius Thomas-sized contract to one of his own instead of an UFA. That speaks volumes about both Thompson's assessment of those free agents versus his assessment of Barnett.

It also makes us wonder, just a little, if signing your own good/not great player to a huge deal is any better or worse than signing the good/not great players in free agency to similar deals.

Question Number Two: What is more important to Nick Barnett, team loyalty or a big payday?

I predicted at the time that a deal for Barnett would likely cost us around $9.4 against this year's cap, assuming that Thompson had few other options to spend money elsewhere, and that, wisely, he would spend all he could today in order to preserve room for tomorrow.

While we don't know for sure yet, that number could indeed be close. And the answer to the question was one I forgot to mention: both A) and B ).

It appears that Barnett may have taken a slight hometown discount to stay in Green Bay, but rumors right now estimate that he has signed a $35 million dollar deal.

That's a pretty good deal, even though, according to Barnett's agent, that is on the "low end" of what he was expecting with a new deal.

Adelius Thomas, this season's line-backing free agent prize, signed a five year deal worth $35 million, though almost $20 million of that was guaranteed.

Now, as happy as a moment as this is for us Packer fans, let's be honest: this was an awfully good deal for a linebacker who hasn't made a Pro Bowl, and whose statistical success is measured by leading the team in tackles, not sacks, interceptions, or tackles for loss.

Barnett didn't have to choose between team loyalty or the big paycheck. He got the best of both worlds today, and Ted had the money to spend it with.

Now, of course, we can make the comparison that Barnett would have made more in free agency. Funny thing is, Adalius Thomas was given the same criticism, that he signed for less money to be in a place he wanted to be.

However, we can say that the deal Thomas got ($7M per year) is pretty even with what we're expecting from Barnett's details ($6 mil per year).

Question Number Three: How much faith do the Packers have in Abdul Hodge?

In all of this hubbub and celebration of (finally) a signing, Abdul Hodge's status is quietly going unnoticed. But don't think it is going unnoticed in 1265.

Certainly, you can never have too many good players, but you would think that if Aaron Rodgers was truly ready, and the coach and GM believed it, why would they continue to pay Brett Favre over $10 million a year?

Probably because he's not ready. And may not even be the answer.

If the Packer brass really though Abdul Hodge was the next big thing, would they have signed Barnett to a $6 mil a year contract?

My guess is, probably not. Thompson has shown incredible faith in his line-backing picks before, essentially giving Brady Poppinga every opportunity to win the strong side job in his second year, despite coming off relatively serious injury.

He apparently doesn't have that same faith in Hodge, and Barnett appears to be in the fold for many, many years as a result.

Three questions.

Three answers.

Number 56 will be patrolling the field, sideline to sideline, for the foreseeable future. Ted Thompson saw him as an important cog in the rebuilding process, and Barnett saw dollar signs being offered to keep him here, where he started and has endured probably as many negatives as positives over the past few years (revolving door of defensive coordinators, the hassles with his nightclub).

Now, the burden of proof will be on both Thompson and Barnett to make this Adalius Thomas-esque contract worth the cap space.

Barnett is being paid like a line-backing elite, and the pressure will be now on him to produce like one.

Nick Barnett: Three Key Questions

As the free agent frenzy has died down, the mob that is the fan base of the Green Bay Packers are looking at the $20 million dollars still available in salary cap space, the now-real possibility that Randy Moss's salary will not be taking up half that amount, and wondering: when are we going to get Nick Barnett back in the fold?

Barnett, 25, has manned the middle of the linebacking corps since his rookie season, and is now entering his unrestricted free agent contract year. Now, there are always a slough of criticisms to be brought up at times like this.

For one, people haven’t always been sold on Nick Barnett. He’s undergone criticism for overrunning plays, not being the prototypical MLB, and of course, never making a Pro Bowl.

Ted Thompson can also come under a bit of criticism, as he had some of last year’s cap space available to push through to this year. Instead of choosing to lock up Barnett, who was asking to be locked up, Ted let it roll over into this season, and now may be looking at losing a player or grossly overpaying for him.

Criticism aside, all rumors suggest that the Packers and Barnett’s agent are “talking”, but nothing has suggested a deal is close, much less imminent. As Adalius Thomas, the new New England Patriot linebacker, can attest, free agency is probably going to be a lot more profitable for Nick Barnett, especially if he proves himself to finally be a Pro Bowl talent in 2007.

Thomas signed a five-year deal with a $12 million signing bonus, and will pocket $22 million between now and December 2008. Peter King commented that the Patriots have mortgaged the future to win now with Thomas, who, while only counting $3.4 million against the cap in 2007, will have cap numbers of $5.4 million, $6.4 million, $9.4 million, and $10.4 million over the next four years.

Mortgaging the future doesn’t sound like Ted Thompson’s M.O. But, you can be sure that somewhere in the NFL, there is a team that will be willing to throw that kind of money at Nick Barnett next offseason.

And you can be sure that Barnett and his agent are acutely aware of that, too.

Which bring us back to the potentially polarizing topic of Thompson attemting to extend Barnett’s contract. Other than Randy Moss, there is perhaps no topic right now that people are more diversely opinionated on: the value of Nick Barnett. While I have few answers for you today, I will offer three questions that, when answered, will tell us whether or not #56 will be a staple in the Green and Gold for the foreseeable future.

Question Number One: How much value do the Green Bay Packers place on Nick Barnett?

The Packer linebacker will be making a mere $1.9 million base salary this upcoming year, with a pro-rated bonus push that will set his cap space at $3.6 million, ranking tenth on the present Packer roster.

That’s a good deal for a solid linebacker who’s been on the cusp of a Pro Bowl, and has led the team in tackles multiple times. But if you renegotiate, where is the point that it becomes too much coin for the same player?

Interestingly enough, Barnett’s and Adelius Thomas’s 2007 cap figures are pretty similar, but we know the comparison ends there. Is Barnett worth $5.4 million later? $9.4 million later?

And most of all, is he worth keeping on a back-loaded contract that will cost us a mint to trade or cut later on? The logic with all the present space would be, unlike Thomas’s contract, to put the bulk of his money at the front of the contract, and put that $9.4 figure on for this year.

But is that something that Thompson is willing to do? Does he see Nick Barnett as a premier middle linebacking talent worthy of a $12+ million signing bonus? Combined, Al Harris and Charles Woodson won’t cost us $10 million this upcoming season.

Barnett has been a solid player who has played through injury. I don’t think anyone will doubt that he is a solid Packer player who is good for the team. But critics say that if you place any decent player at the MLB position in the Packer scheme, they will rack up the tackles, too. He’s never had more than 3 sacks or interceptions in a season. Put AJ Hawk at middle linebacker, and he’ll do just as well, if not better, the critics say.

Now, Ted Thompson has a much better idea of what he has in Nick Barnett than any of us do. He knows the kind of locker room presence he has, knows the ability he has, and has a pretty good idea of the ceiling that this 25-year old player has.

How he answers this question will be evident in how much he’s willing to spend, because after not locking him up in 2006, the price tag just became much, much higher.

Question Number Two: What is more important to Nick Barnett, team loyalty or a big payday?

This question just became uncomfortably obvious when Thomas signed his contract with the Patriots. As the premier defensive player, and clearly the premier middle linebacker, in the 2006 version of free agency, he benefitted from the dollars being thrown around by teams for whom the pendalum has swung the other way. Teams that got burned in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s by back-loaded contracts and dead salary cap space learned to conserve, and now more and more teams are sitting with surpluses and looking for players to spend it on.

Nick Barnett would already be a top defensive player in 2008, certainly in the caliber of Nate Clements, who also got an ungodly amount of money in free agency. Now, add a year and more cap space to the 2008 totals, and possibly a Pro Bowl season by Barnett, and the cast is set for him to truly strike pay dirt, with signing bonuses exceeding $15 million.

Or, he can stay with the Packers for less.

I don’t think there is any doubt that Ted Thompson is going to try and sign him for less than what he’s going to get on the open market. The question is, would Barnett be willing to settle for it?

Barnett may indeed be getting tired of Green Bay, too. His nightclub docudrama has gone on now for over a year, and the frustration of a young man feeling like he’s being attacked unfairly by the people of the city he’s playing in may be growing old, real fast.

Ted could also place a franchise tag on Barnett after the season. The 2007 linebacker franchise number is around $6.4 million, so add a bit to that, especially with Adalius Thomas’s contract.

While I don’t have a definitive answer for this question, I think there’s a pretty clear direction that any 25 year-old with a limited career lifespan is going to lean towards: payday. While Barnett may take less money to stay in Green Bay, its not going to be a lot less. And while many of us may spit and decry the obscene amounts of money being thrown at these free agents nowadays, who among us can begrudge the players themselves for signing on the dotted line?

Question Number Three: How much faith do the Packers have in Abdul Hodge?

This may end up being Ted Thompson’s ace in the hole, because right now, his hand isn’t looking all that good as it relates to Nick Barnett. Barring injury, Barnett has every motivation to play out this season at the highest level he’s ever played at, and then move on to the highest bidder.

When Thompson picked up Abdul Hodge in the third round of the draft last year, many Packers fans raised an eyebrow. Why would we be drafting a linebacker, a middle linebacker, when we already have a first rounder playing the position? Why would we draft a MLB whose abilities don’t translate well to the strong-side, where we didn’t have a proven or set starter at the time?

As many of us suspected at the time, Thompson may have been planning ahead for this moment. Maybe, answering question number one, he didn’t believe that Barnett was as valuable as many of us thought. Maybe, answering question number two, he didn’t believe that he would be worth as much money as he would be commanding someday.

And so, enter Abdul Hodge, undersized but played at a high level in college. His 2006 season was more obscure than it was proving himself an heir apparent, starting one game at Seattle and garnering 12 tackles, and snagging a mid-air fumble from Matt Hasselback and returning it for a touchdown.

But things went downhill from there. Barnett returned from injury, and Hodge developed his own, a shoulder problem that kept him on the bench during the four-game winning streak.

How Hodge develops will play a big part in how negotiations continue to progress with Nick Barnett. If he ends up being an injury-prone, undersized linebacker, the Packers may be forced to pony up for Barnett or begin searching for his replacement. If Hodge ends up being the force he was at Iowa, Thompson may just find #55 as able to fill the MIKE spot as #56, and save a little coin in the process.

Three questions.

Over the next few months, these three questions will likely get answers, and we will know if Nick Barnett is destined for the Packer Hall of Fame or on to his big payday.

Both offer a lot of “green” and “gold”, though with different defintions. It will depend which is more important to Barnett, and how important it is to Ted Thompson to keep him here.